Physiological Advantages of Progressive Runs over Tempos? (Or the Other Way Around?)

thonner wrote:

My tempo runs are my easy days. Tempo to me means getting your legs back under you temporarily during the week where you have three other hard runs (intervals, progression, long run).

My week.

Monday - 5 Mile Tempo

Tuesday - 6x800 Intervals

Wednesday - OFF

Thursday - 8 Mile Progression Run

Friday - 6 Mile Tempo

Saturday - 5 Mile Tempo

Sunday - 12 Mile Long

My Tempo runs are temporarily slower than my hard workouts.

Just curious, what is the pace for your tempos, compared to say, 5K pace?

artificial scarcity wrote:

thonner wrote:

My tempo runs are my easy days. Tempo to me means getting your legs back under you temporarily during the week where you have three other hard runs (intervals, progression, long run).

My week.

Monday - 5 Mile Tempo

Tuesday - 6x800 Intervals

Wednesday - OFF

Thursday - 8 Mile Progression Run

Friday - 6 Mile Tempo

Saturday - 5 Mile Tempo

Sunday - 12 Mile Long

My Tempo runs are temporarily slower than my hard workouts.

Just curious, what is the pace for your tempos, compared to say, 5K pace?

Wondered the same. I don't think what he is calling a Tempo and what I call a Tempo are the same thing, relative to our respective fitness.

Sorry if some of this has been covered. I have only skimmed the previous posts. I agree with a lot that has already been posted particularly concentration on form early in progressives, learning to withstand longer periods at threshold and finishing beyond that line, and reading yourself as you progress. As a coach I have an affinity for progressives over tempo (AT) runs due to so many runners, especially young ones, who start a tempo far too fast and slow throughout the run. Learning how to spread the effort to late portions of runs and races is very big in long-term development, and progressives seem to have a better chance of achieving this.

my Tempo runs are slow/recovery pace.

thonner wrote:

my Tempo runs are slow/recovery pace.

Since anyone can call anything a "tempo" I guess there's nothing wrong with this.

thonner wrote:

my Tempo runs are slow/recovery pace.

lol

Why do you call it a Tempo run, then?

thonner wrote:

my Tempo runs are slow/recovery pace.

Just a difference of terminology. That is why I put AT (anaerobic threshold) in parenthesis so you would have a better understanding of how I view 'tempo'. I feel the majority if not everyone on this thread know what was being talked about but some feel a need to get picky about terms rather than have a productive discussion about the beneficial differences between tempo (AT) and progressive runs.

thejeff wrote:

thonner wrote:

my Tempo runs are slow/recovery pace.

lol

Why do you call it a Tempo run, then?

Because these runs are just Temporary, I usually run faster. "Tempo"rary.

thejeff wrote:

COACH J.S å ä ö wrote:

Progressive runs would maybe feel more fun but they will not give the very best physiological outcome. Running intervals or tempos at an even level of pace will give the best effect. What happen that way is that the even level of pace gets more demanding the more reps the interval has ,and the same with the tempo during the run. The pace will not increase but the effort will.

Some of the kenyans I coach used to run progressive intervals before I took over . They ran too slow at the first reps and too fast at the last reps. When I corrected that they got a fast improvement.

The only real Wizard :)

Do you think it matters if the runner is more of a slow-twitch vs fast twitch runner?

I would say , the more fast twitch have an advantage! Why ? Because fast twitch muscle fibers can be "transformed" to work as slow twitch, but not the other way. And if the runner have a fast pace over 200-400m it`s much easier to work from that speed base to reach fast times over 800- marathon.

I don't see a difference in effort between this:

5:10

5:00

4:50

4:40

4:30

AND this:

4:50

4:50

4:50

4:50

4:50

You say maintaining the 4:50s increases the effort more than the other. Why?

Hggjfk wrote:

COACH J.S å ä ö wrote:

Progressive runs would maybe feel more fun but they will not give the very best physiological outcome. Running intervals or tempos at an even level of pace will give the best effect. What happen that way is that the even level of pace gets more demanding the more reps the interval has ,and the same with the tempo during the run. The pace will not increase but the effort will.

Some of the kenyans I coach used to run progressive intervals before I took over . They ran too slow at the first reps and too fast at the last reps. When I corrected that they got a fast improvement.

The only real Wizard :)

I don't see a difference in effort between this:

5:10

5:00

4:50

4:40

4:30

AND this:

4:50

4:50

4:50

4:50

4:50

You say maintaining the 4:50s increases the effort more than the other. Why?

I don`t say maintaining the 4:50s increases the effort more than in your other progressive example. What I say is that when running the runners individual correct threshold pace the effort to hold the even pace will increase. In the first progressive example the effort increases because of faster and faster pace. The 5:10 pace is too slow and the 4:30 pace is too fast to give the very best pressure on the body system during the entire run.

Cram ran progs.

Progression runs are harder IMHO

You have to change gears instead of finding your rhythm and just keeping the pace even.

bkjb wrote:

Cram ran progs.

Cram didn`t run progs all the time. Sometimes. His favourite interval was 10-12 x 400m at 60 sec. Even pace.

This.

I did a 7-mile progressive tempo today. 8:33 down to 7:12 and could have gone faster at the end but wanted to not overdo it. The progressions are a way to get your body warmed up. It also allowed me to focus on the form and "feeling light" (i.e. running upright, letting my legs turnover but not overstriding--I think that is how I hurt myself a few weeks ago. New shoes help though).

https://www.strava.com/activities/6512806581